It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it. Most Burmese are familiar with the four a-gati, the four kinds of corruption. Chanda-gati, corruption induced by desire, is deviation from the right path in pursuit of bribes or for the sake of those one loves. Dosa-gati is taking the wrong path to spite those against whom one bears ill will, and moga-gati is aberration due to ignorance. But perhaps the worst of the four is bhaya-gati, for not only does bhaya, fear, stifle and slowly destroy all sense of right and wrong, it so often lies at the root of the other three kinds of corruption. Just as chanda-gati, when not the result of sheer avarice, can be caused by fear of want or fear of losing the goodwill of those one loves, so fear of being surpassed, humiliated or injured in some way can provide the impetus for ill will. And it would be difficult to dispel ignorance unless there is freedom to pursue the truth unfettered by fear. With so close a relationship between fear and corruption it is little wonder that in any society where fear is rife corruption in all forms becomes deeply entrenched.

* * *

The quintessential revolution is that of the spirit, born of an intellectual conviction of the need for change in those mental attitudes and values which shape the course of a nation’s development. A revolution which aims merely at changing official policies and institutions with a view to an improvement in material conditions has little chance of genuine success.

Watch Aung San Suu Kyi explain the Burmese concept of democracy

“What they understood was that they wanted security. They wanted freedom. They wanted to be free to shape their own destinies. They wanted to live in a land that was free from fear and free from want. They wanted to live in a nation where the people could elect their own government. Not because they had ever heard President Lincoln’s speech, but because their instinct told them that this was the kind of government that would look after their interests.”

Friday June 24

“Kristeva’s main concerns are with the politics of marginality and against all monologic discourse, with the desire to produce a discourse which always confronts (and is thus in process all the time), the impasse of language, and moves to think language against itself. Julia Kristeva feels that instead of accepting consensual ideology and moralizing, we need to adopt an “analytic, relentless position” that takes negativity into account. She also challenges “writers” instead of intellectuals to reinvent the political realm. Kristeva, unlike many others, practices her theories. In her non-fiction and fiction she fractures language and conventions and interacts with multiple texts.”

Kristeva: I do not think that modern linguistic theories are mistaken … but all these linguistic theories presuppose a separation between subject and object. … It is precisely this solidity and separation that are in contention … at times of revolt, innovation, or creation. So I proposed a model designed to accommodate these dynamic situations where meaning is not always given. … To better understand this dynamic, I speak of two modalities. First, the semiotic, which is seen in echolalias — infant vocalizing prior to sign and syntax. And second, sign and syntax, or what I call the symbolic. The articulation of the two produces the dynamics of language. You could construct a typology of the discourse of human experience on the basis of these notions of semiotic and symbolic, which deals with critical states of language and possibilities of change and evolution.

Read excerpts from Desire in Language: a semiotic approach to literature and arthere